本文選題：直接侵權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：歸責(zé)原則　出處：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：“快照”類服務(wù)是近年來廣泛出現(xiàn)的一種網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索方式�！翱煺铡笔侵杆阉饕娣⻊�(wù)商將其他網(wǎng)站中的內(nèi)容先行自動存儲在自己的服務(wù)器中,當(dāng)用戶進(jìn)行網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索時,搜索引擎提供已先行備份的相應(yīng)網(wǎng)頁以便用戶從其服務(wù)器中直接讀取的一種搜索服務(wù)方式。 “快照”這種新型的搜索服務(wù)方式極大地加強(qiáng)了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)中信息傳播的速度及廣度,然而卻也引發(fā)了有關(guān)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的大量法律問題,其范圍不僅包括基于“快照”本身的侵權(quán)定性問題,亦涉及著作權(quán)侵權(quán)構(gòu)成及歸責(zé)原則的理論爭議。與此同時,“快照”訴訟中牽涉的各類抗辯事由,以及各國法院對此截然不同的態(tài)度亦具有很高的探討價值與意義。 本文試圖對與“快照”類服務(wù)相關(guān)的各類著作權(quán)問題進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)地研究及分析,以期為這一極具應(yīng)用價值的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)提供合理的法律規(guī)制方法。 本文正文包含四章節(jié)內(nèi)容： 第一章,“快照”類服務(wù)與著作權(quán)侵權(quán)。本章首先對著作權(quán)專有權(quán)利進(jìn)行了簡要的介紹,提出專有權(quán)利并非賦權(quán)式規(guī)定,而是為著作權(quán)人以外的社會公眾劃定專屬于著作權(quán)人的領(lǐng)地。其后,文章認(rèn)定“快照”類服務(wù)系對著作權(quán)人復(fù)制權(quán)及信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)的直接侵權(quán)。最后,通過與其它一般搜索服務(wù)的比較,明確“快照”類服務(wù)的性質(zhì)。 第二章,“快照”類服務(wù)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的歸責(zé)原則。本章首先明確了歸責(zé)原則應(yīng)當(dāng)僅限于侵權(quán)責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式中的損害賠償責(zé)任,對于停止侵權(quán)及返還不當(dāng)?shù)美?zé)任的承擔(dān)無需以侵權(quán)人的主觀過錯為前提。其次,筆者經(jīng)過大量的比較法研究,認(rèn)定著作權(quán)侵權(quán)中的損害賠償責(zé)任應(yīng)當(dāng)適用過錯責(zé)任原則,此后更大膽地提出其具體形式應(yīng)當(dāng)為過錯推定原則。 第三章,“快照”類服務(wù)著作權(quán)侵權(quán)的抗辯事由辨析。本章針對“快照”類訴訟中的多種抗辯事由進(jìn)行了一一解析。認(rèn)定“避風(fēng)港”規(guī)則、程序自動生成、默示許可均不能成為“快照”不構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的抗辯事由。最后,通過大量國外案例比較介紹了合理使用制度的不同立法模式及其相應(yīng)的適用結(jié)果。 第四章,我國“快照”類服務(wù)的典型案例評述及立法建議。本章首先介紹了我國涉及“快照”類服務(wù)的四個典型案例并對法院判決進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析。其次,從“快照”類服務(wù)性質(zhì)以及我國現(xiàn)實(shí)出發(fā),提出了在我國合理規(guī)制“快照”類服務(wù)的整體思路及立法建議。
[Abstract]:"Snapshot" service is a widely used network search method in recent years. "Snapshot" refers to the search engine service providers automatically store the content of other websites in their own servers, when users search the network, Search engine provides a search service for users to read directly from their servers. "Snapshot", a new type of search service, has greatly enhanced the speed and breadth of information dissemination on the Internet, but it has also led to a large number of legal problems related to copyright infringement. Its scope includes not only the qualitative nature of infringement based on "snapshot" itself, but also the theoretical dispute about the constitution of copyright infringement and the principle of imputation. At the same time, all kinds of defenses involved in "snapshot" litigation are involved. And the different attitudes of the courts are of great value and significance. This paper attempts to systematically study and analyze all kinds of copyright problems related to "snapshot" services in order to provide a reasonable legal regulation method for this extremely valuable network service. This text contains four chapters:. Chapter 1, "Snapshot" service and copyright infringement. This chapter first briefly introduces the exclusive rights of copyright, and points out that the exclusive rights are not empowerment provisions. Then, the article concludes that the "snapshot" service is a direct infringement of the copyright owner's right to copy and the right to disseminate information on the Internet. Finally, the article finds that the "snapshot" service is a direct infringement of the copyright owner's right to copy and the right to disseminate information on the Internet. Compare with other general search services to clarify the nature of the Snapshot service. Chapter two, the liability principle of "snapshot" service copyright infringement. Firstly, this chapter clarifies that the liability principle should be limited to the damage liability in the way of tort liability. It is not necessary to take the subjective fault of the infringer as the premise to stop the tort and to return the improper enrichment liability. Secondly, the author finds that the principle of fault liability should be applied to the liability for damages in copyright infringement through a large number of comparative studies. Since then more boldly put forward its specific form should be the principle of presumption of fault. The third chapter, "Snapshot" service copyright infringement defense reasons discrimination. This chapter for the "snapshot" type of litigation for a variety of defenses, identified that "safe haven" rules, the program automatically generated, Implied permission can not be the defense of infringement. Finally, through a large number of foreign cases, the author introduces the different legislative models of reasonable use system and the corresponding application results. Chapter 4th, the typical cases of "snapshot" service in China and legislative suggestions. This chapter firstly introduces four typical cases of "snapshot" service in China and makes a detailed analysis of the court judgment. Based on the nature of "snapshot" service and the reality of our country, this paper puts forward the overall idea and legislative suggestion of regulating "snapshot" service in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D923.41

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 袁媛;;“百度快照”與信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)法律問題研究[J];長春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報;2010年05期

2 沈木珠;中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)與無過錯責(zé)任原則之適用[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問題研究;2003年03期

3 王遷;;我國《著作權(quán)法》中“廣播權(quán)”與“信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)”的重構(gòu)[J];重慶工學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年09期

4 王棟;;基于網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索服務(wù)的默示許可制度研究[J];常熟理工學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年01期

5 王遷;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境中版權(quán)直接侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定[J];東方法學(xué);2009年02期

6 王遷;;搜索引擎提供“快照”服務(wù)的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問題研究[J];東方法學(xué);2010年03期

7 趙莉;質(zhì)疑網(wǎng)絡(luò)版權(quán)中“默示許可”的法律地位[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年12期

8 范曉波;;著作權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償之根據(jù)[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年03期

9 呂炳斌;;網(wǎng)絡(luò)時代的版權(quán)默示許可制度——兩起Google案的分析[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年07期

10 王遷;;“垂直搜索”的著作權(quán)侵權(quán)問題研究——兼評“大眾點(diǎn)評網(wǎng)訴愛幫網(wǎng)案”及“攜程網(wǎng)訴趣拿網(wǎng)案”[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年11期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 吳玉霞;網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下著作權(quán)合理使用制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

2 張俊林;搜索引擎服務(wù)提供者著作權(quán)侵權(quán)責(zé)任分析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：1615872